Supporters Trust looking to own the club???

Sluffy

Admin

Posts : 14422Join date : 2011-12-29

With thanks to Chris Custodiet for spotting this and posting it over on ww a few days back - Companies House records show that Bolton Wanderers Supporters Community Interest Company became incorporated on the 9th October this year.

luckyPeterpiper

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:Everyone in the Trust is aware of this but we are not allowed to speak to outsiders.

Are we Dean? I'm a member of the ST and haven't heard a single word about it? I haven't even had so much as an e-mail from them since they acknowledged receiving my initial subscription. So please, if you know more than a fellow ST member enlighten me as to exactly how and when they plan to make this latest fantasy happen?

boltonbonce

Nat Lofthouse

Posts : 20616Join date : 2013-10-05Age : 65Location : The garden shed

In an attempt to engage with the owner and to establish and maintain lines of communication between the club, the Supporters’ Trust members and the BWFC fans generally, we posted a series of articles on our website in early 2018. These insights into what true supporter engagement should entail were prepared by Supporters Direct (SD), the organisation that assists many supporters’ trusts throughout the country. It is fair to say that SD’s involvement in setting up the BWFCST in January 2016 was invaluable and their experience in dealing with regulatory football bodies, club supporters and club owners has been of great ongoing assistance to the BWFCST board since our formation.Memorandum of Understanding

At our AGM in July ’18, we reported that various efforts were being made to meet with the club with a view to discussing constructive joint initiatives and also as a forum in which to raise supporters’ ongoing concerns relating to the future of BWFC.

We also reported at our AGM that as part of this exercise, and in an attempt to develop a structured dialogue with the club, we were looking to take forward the idea, currently being explored by many clubs, of developing a Memorandum of Understanding ([You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]). Such an agreement would, hopefully, allow a realistic and constructive exchange of views and information between the owner, the club’s senior management and the supporters. The draft MoU document that we prepared is not exclusive to the Supporters’ Trust and would assist other supporters’ representatives in gaining access to ask relevant questions and to help establish a mutually beneficial understanding between all parties involved in BWFC.

The draft MoU that we have now prepared can be viewed on our website [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]and includes the following commitment on behalf of the BWFCST:

“Liaise with other supporters’ groups and stakeholders on suitable topics for discussion ahead of structured dialogue meetings, respecting other existing communication and supporter dialogue structures that exist between supporters and the club”.

Invitation to Meet

In order to make some progress with such an initiative, we again contacted the owner in mid-October to request a meeting to discuss, amongst other items, the development of the MoU. With our invitation to meet, we also issued the draft MoU document for consideration. This draft document is based entirely on the SD MoU template which has already been developed and adopted by Fulham, Norwich City and Notts Forest.

Unfortunately, the owner, via his consultant, Paul Aldridge, declined to meet with us and also declined the opportunity to engage in an MoU, instead preferring to cite the frequent “note from the chairman” posts on the club website, the recent Q&A sessions and the various interviews with the media as an example of the owners engagement with the BWFC supporters.

We feel, however, that this method of conveying the owner’s observations and opinions most certainly does not fall into the category of structured dialogue. We also pointed out in our recent invitation to meet that the current EFL Regulations require clubs to engage in structured dialogue with their supporters at least twice a year.

Our invitation to the owner to meet remains open and we will continue to attempt to make some progress in establishing a meaningful line of communication to raise and discuss the views and concerns of both the BWFCST members and also the other BWFC supporters groups. We will keep you informed of any future developments.

Ten Bobsworth

David Lee

Posts : 163Join date : 2017-08-17

Why would Ken Anderson want to spend his time meeting the ST? Hasn't he got more pressing priorities?

I expect the death of Eddie Davies will have hit Ken Anderson hard and he has gone noticeably quiet recently. Some will welcome that but I hope that it may also be a sign that there are confidential discussions going on regarding the future financing of the club. I cannot see another Madine-like sale coming to the rescue in January.

For the benefit of anyone unfamiliar with MoU's, they are Yes Minister type documents used extensively in the public sector to make it look like something has been agreed when it hasn't really. When its pointed out to senior public servants that an MoU hasn't been followed, the ready response is that they are only guidelines and not binding. Somehow, I can't see Ken having any truck with that kind of stuff.

Sluffy

Admin

Posts : 14422Join date : 2011-12-29

It is interesting - well I guess it isn't to most people - to look more deeply at what is behind the ST and I don't mean the nutjobs with their agenda to live out their fantasies by playing owners and Football Manager at our club.

To start with sport in general governs itself rather than falls under the laws of the land that we live our daily lives by, so the Supporters Direct (SD) which the above message from the ST seems to imply is the 'governing' or some sort of 'leading authority' over Supporters Trust turns out to be merely a body set up as a sort of charity 'a Community Benefit Society' in order to set up ST's and which itself is funded and owned by it's membership - ie the ST's themselves.

It seems to have be born out of a sort of sop to football fans complaining to their MP's of some dodgy goings on at some clubs at the time around 20 years or so ago - (Northampton, Wrexham, Stockport, etc) - who had no say in how clubs are owned or run - and the bad 'image' it was beginning to portray about the less flattering aspects of football particularly when some unscrupulous businessmen saw money to be made by basically buying a club, closing it down and redeveloping its the land the stadium used to be sited on.

In simple terms the SD was initially set up by the government (and basically financed by the Premier League) then handed over to the SD/ST' to run it themselves, so as to give the appearance something was being done - ie the rash of ST's that suddenly sprung up, the rush of ACV that were obtained and now the dash to get MoU's signed up to - non of which are more than window dressing in the scheme of things.

It seems that most people now accept that it is not the job of the government to get involved in football club ownership and that the footballing bodies governs itself in its own way and at best only plays lip service to the SD/ST's - so much so that it as cut the funding to the SD forcing it to merege with another group funded by the Premier League, the equally non effective (and created as a sop) the Football Supporters Federation (FSF) - see link below -

To my mind our ST (and its parent body the SD) is just like the big bad wolf in the tale of the Three Little Piggies in that it still continues to 'huff and it puff as hard as it might' but it simply can't blow Ken Anderson's house down - no matter how much it would like to do so and take on the club itself.

The ST carries no weight and has no actual authority behind it, no matter how it would like to portray it has.

Growler

I expect the death of Eddie Davies will have hit Ken Anderson hard and he has gone noticeably quiet recently. Some will welcome that but I hope that it may also be a sign that there are confidential discussions going on regarding the future financing of the club. I cannot see another Madine-like sale coming to the rescue in January.

The big concern for Ken will be that following the loss of Eddie Davies there is one less person to provide him money when he can't or won't pay an urgent bill.There is still the car park guy and the Warburton family who would possibly provide money to avoid administration.Or maybe they will think that the club slipping into administration might be no worse than prolonging the agony under Ken.Whether or not they themselves would lose money in administration will have a bearing on that.

Ten Bobsworth

I expect the death of Eddie Davies will have hit Ken Anderson hard and he has gone noticeably quiet recently. Some will welcome that but I hope that it may also be a sign that there are confidential discussions going on regarding the future financing of the club. I cannot see another Madine-like sale coming to the rescue in January.

The big concern for Ken will be that following the loss of Eddie Davies there is one less person to provide him money when he can't or won't pay an urgent bill.There is still the car park guy and the Warburton family who would possibly provide money to avoid administration.Or maybe they will think that the club slipping into administration might be no worse than prolonging the agony under Ken.Whether or not they themselves would lose money in administration will have a bearing on that.

I was really referring to the psychological effect of the death of Eddie Davies on Ken Anderson.

Ten Bobsworth

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:I was really referring to the psychological effect of the death of Eddie Davies on Ken Anderson.

I hope not, this is not a job for someone mentally fragile.

There are those who would have you believe that anyone who displays mental toughness in their business dealings must also be devoid of any human feelings or sensitivities. I don't think Ken Anderson is mentally fragile in the least but I do think that the death of Eddie Davies will have hit him hard.

Ten Bobsworth

David Lee

Posts : 163Join date : 2017-08-17

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:i think the fuck the Andersons chant as the last home game and the uproar at ticket prices for the Wigan game may have something to do with him doing a Gartside and staying silent.

He can start banging on about shirt sales and being loud and proud when he does the decent thing and sacks Parky.

You mean KA's been here for two and a half years and only just realised that some of the fanbase are a bit on the juvenile side? I'd need a bit more convincing that his silence is down to trying to please them.Prices for the Wiggin game? Too much but anything would be too much for what's been on offer of late.

Ten Bobsworth

David Lee

Posts : 163Join date : 2017-08-17

Looks like the ST are now calling on their very good friend at the BN, Marc Iles, to dish out more anti-Anderson propaganda. What a shame that neither the BN nor the ST want to follow the money trail that tracks the club's money to the private companies of the ST's other erstwhile confidante, Dean Holdsworth. Meanwhile other BWFC websites still haven't cottoned on to what funded the 472K that Inner Circle lashed out on the Holdsworth shares or why it had little alternative

T.R.O.Y

Sluffy

Admin

Posts : 14422Join date : 2011-12-29

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:Looks like the ST are now calling on their very good friend at the BN, Marc Iles, to dish out more anti-Anderson propaganda. What a shame that neither the BN nor the ST want to follow the money trail that tracks the club's money to the private companies of the ST's other erstwhile confidante, Dean Holdsworth. Meanwhile other BWFC websites still haven't cottoned on to what funded the 472K that Inner Circle lashed out on the Holdsworth shares or why it had little alternative

Yes, I saw Iles article much earlier today (which basically is about them bitching that Ken wants nothing to do with them or their MoU - which was posted about on this thread a number of days back) but decided not to post it up on Nuts for a number of reasons, one of which was to see how much (or how little!) of a reaction people had to it.

As I suspected it hasn't raised even a ripple of interest by anyone other than a few of the anti-Anderson nutjobs and even then the 'hardcore' Anderson haters don't seem to have jumped on the bandwagon either, suggesting that even they are now giving a wide swerve to anything to do with those leading the ST these days!

The article can be found here if anyone wishes to waste five minutes of their life, like I did, reading it.

Ten Bobsworth

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:Looks like the ST are now calling on their very good friend at the BN, Marc Iles, to dish out more anti-Anderson propaganda. What a shame that neither the BN nor the ST want to follow the money trail that tracks the club's money to the private companies of the ST's other erstwhile confidante, Dean Holdsworth. Meanwhile other BWFC websites still haven't cottoned on to what funded the 472K that Inner Circle lashed out on the Holdsworth shares or why it had little alternative

Yes, I saw Iles article much earlier today (which basically is about them bitching that Ken wants nothing to do with them or their MoU - which was posted about on this thread a number of days back) but decided not to post it up on Nuts for a number of reasons, one of which was to see how much (or how little!) of a reaction people had to it.

As I suspected it hasn't raised even a ripple of interest by anyone other than a few of the anti-Anderson nutjobs and even then the 'hardcore' Anderson haters don't seem to have jumped on the bandwagon either, suggesting that even they are now giving a wide swerve to anything to do with those leading the ST these days!

The article can be found here if anyone wishes to waste five minutes of their life, like I did, reading it.

Most interesting bits to me are that the ST still doesn't seem to have learned any lessons and that Iles is still happy to go along with the anti-Anderson propaganda even when he knows that the club could ill-afford the £525K consultancy fee and that Anderson had little choice but to find the money to reach an accomodation with Blumarble and pay off Holdsworth and his legal advisors.

In September 2017, Blumarble appointed Quantuma to liquidate Sports Shield BWFC with an initial payment being made to Quantuma of £150,000. I think it most likely that this money came directly or indirectly from the club and formed part of the £472K that Inner Circle spent on acquiring Holdsworth's shares. In other words there were other payments amounting to c.£322K that preceded the £150K.

It is possible that the £150K is on top of the £472K but I would think that less likely. Tracing the history and the money through the three Sports Shield companies is fascinating, if something of a minority sport.

Sluffy

Admin

Posts : 14422Join date : 2011-12-29

Anderson really rips into the ST in his latest Note from the Chairman!

I am aware of the Supporters’ Trust’s recent statement in which they have requested for me to engage in ‘structured dialogue’ with their own representatives and the wider support, which I quite frankly find astonishing.

Since I became involved with this club, it has been my intention to have an open and honest line of communication with ALL our supporters and not to hold exclusive conversations with individuals or groups.

During one of my early meetings with them they requested board representation and a shareholding. Their financial offer was what I can only describe as derisory and insulting and generally speaking nothing positive ever came out of the meetings.

In the Q&A sessions I have held at the club, the invitation has always been open for every single Bolton Wanderers fan and no questions have been off limits. These have been timed to coincide with matchdays to ensure as many supporters as possible can attend. The Supporters Trust and other supporter groups are able to participate in these forums and ask whatever questions they would like.

In the letter they sent to me requesting said ‘structured dialogue’they added in a paragraph to the Memorandum of Understanding to suit their own agenda which isn’t included in the current regulations. We felt this to be disingenuous.

It’s perhaps pertinent to mention that the Supporters Trust have had three changes in leadership in relatively quick succession which would make ‘structured dialogue’ somewhat challenging and I have some concerns about how they operate their elections and not to mention the direct debit subscriptions fiasco.

I’ll be looking to have another Q&A forum in January and of course representatives from the Supporters Trust are more than welcome to attend alongside all our other supporters and we can all engage in some ‘structured dialogue.’

Nigelbwfc

David Lee

Posts : 222Join date : 2018-07-10Age : 56Location : Bolton

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:Anderson really rips into the ST in his latest Note from the Chairman!

I am aware of the Supporters’ Trust’s recent statement in which they have requested for me to engage in ‘structured dialogue’ with their own representatives and the wider support, which I quite frankly find astonishing.

Since I became involved with this club, it has been my intention to have an open and honest line of communication with ALL our supporters and not to hold exclusive conversations with individuals or groups.

During one of my early meetings with them they requested board representation and a shareholding. Their financial offer was what I can only describe as derisory and insulting and generally speaking nothing positive ever came out of the meetings.

In the Q&A sessions I have held at the club, the invitation has always been open for every single Bolton Wanderers fan and no questions have been off limits. These have been timed to coincide with matchdays to ensure as many supporters as possible can attend. The Supporters Trust and other supporter groups are able to participate in these forums and ask whatever questions they would like.

In the letter they sent to me requesting said ‘structured dialogue’they added in a paragraph to the Memorandum of Understanding to suit their own agenda which isn’t included in the current regulations. We felt this to be disingenuous.

It’s perhaps pertinent to mention that the Supporters Trust have had three changes in leadership in relatively quick succession which would make ‘structured dialogue’ somewhat challenging and I have some concerns about how they operate their elections and not to mention the direct debit subscriptions fiasco.

I’ll be looking to have another Q&A forum in January and of course representatives from the Supporters Trust are more than welcome to attend alongside all our other supporters and we can all engage in some ‘structured dialogue.’